My own Dual Form questions...(Dual Form + Reform Body)
Colin McGuigan
nasty run-in with Fatima, and takes a quick trip to torpor. Life isn't
looking for Pete, as he now burns.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/072c4997e3deba16
LSJ states that if Pete plays Reform Body, he goes to torpor instead of
burning (as expected), but now Bob is burning -- that is, playing Reform
Body "triggered" the Dual Form card again. But Bob can play a Reform
Body of his own.
#1: Why does this cause Pete to not burn (again)? Ie, why does the Dual
Form not trigger a third time?
#2: Julius (of "If Julius goes into torpor, burn him." fame) learns vic.
He also meets Fatima, and takes a quick trip to torpor. Due to his
card text, he burns. Can he play Reform Body to avoid burning?
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ
> So, Bob (who has vic) uses Dual Form to create Pete. Then Bob has a
> nasty run-in with Fatima, and takes a quick trip to torpor. Life isn't
> looking for Pete, as he now burns.
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/072c4997e3deba16
>
>
> LSJ states that if Pete plays Reform Body, he goes to torpor instead of
> burning (as expected), but now Bob is burning -- that is, playing Reform
> Body "triggered" the Dual Form card again. But Bob can play a Reform
> Body of his own.
>
> #1: Why does this cause Pete to not burn (again)? Ie, why does the Dual
> Form not trigger a third time?
1. Bob is unreadied => buddy burn => Burn Pete.
2. But Pete plays Reform Body => unready Pete => buddy burn => Burn Bob.
3. Bob plays Reform Body. He's already been unreadied (see 1) however,
so no buddy burn.
> #2: Julius (of "If Julius goes into torpor, burn him." fame) learns vic.
> He also meets Fatima, and takes a quick trip to torpor. Due to his
> card text, he burns. Can he play Reform Body to avoid burning?
To forestall it for a split second, as Reform Body then sends him
to torpor, which burns him.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
sinaath
news:FJEHd.4459$8u5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Colin McGuigan wrote:
> > So, Bob (who has vic) uses Dual Form to create Pete. Then Bob has a
> > nasty run-in with Fatima, and takes a quick trip to torpor. Life isn't
> > looking for Pete, as he now burns.
> >
> >
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/072c4997e3deba16
> >
> >
> > LSJ states that if Pete plays Reform Body, he goes to torpor instead of
> > burning (as expected), but now Bob is burning -- that is, playing Reform
> > Body "triggered" the Dual Form card again. But Bob can play a Reform
> > Body of his own.
> >
> > #1: Why does this cause Pete to not burn (again)? Ie, why does the Dual
> > Form not trigger a third time?
>
> 1. Bob is unreadied => buddy burn => Burn Pete.
> 2. But Pete plays Reform Body => unready Pete => buddy burn => Burn Bob.
Wouldn't that be chain-effect?
If Pete is burned, Bob would be unaffected by DF-chain, althought Pete left
ready region?
Why does "saved" Bob burn, when Pete leaves ready region?
salem
<sin...@kill.this.gmail.com> scrawled:
i suspect because the torporing of Pete is a new effect. The DF burned
Pete. thus ends that chain. But now Pete, being a crazy alien
viccissitudalist, plays a Reform Body. This unreadies him. a new
unreadying. It's not a result of a Dual Form effect.
that's where i'd put my money, anyway. at least a little bit of money.
say, 80c.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
Ankur Gupta
> He also meets Fatima, and takes a quick trip to torpor. Due to his card
> text, he burns. Can he play Reform Body to avoid burning?
I think this is a trick question since as we all know, Fatima couldn't
torpor anyone ever.
Ankur Gupta
Prince of West Lafayette
sinaath
news:rnpuu0hqfml3jdmqj...@4ax.com...
what new effect? FD already triggered hence both clones can stay in torpor.
> Pete. thus ends that chain. But now Pete, being a crazy alien
> viccissitudalist, plays a Reform Body. This unreadies him. a new
> unreadying. It's not a result of a Dual Form effect.
so what effect caused Bob to burn? Scary visions of his twin's death?
> that's where i'd put my money, anyway. at least a little bit of money.
> say, 80c.
I'll bid $0.10 more for my opinion, let LSJ judge this.
sinaath
salem
<sin...@kill.this.gmail.com> scrawled:
>> >> 1. Bob is unreadied => buddy burn => Burn Pete.
>> >> 2. But Pete plays Reform Body => unready Pete => buddy burn => Burn
>Bob.
>> >
>> >Wouldn't that be chain-effect?
>> >If Pete is burned, Bob would be unaffected by DF-chain, althought Pete
>left
>> >ready region?
>> >Why does "saved" Bob burn, when Pete leaves ready region?
>>
>> i suspect because the torporing of Pete is a new effect. The DF burned
>
>what new effect? FD already triggered hence both clones can stay in torpor.
I guess i could have been more verbose.
When the DF burninating occurs, that's it for that effect. But when
you play Reform Body, RF _sends_ Pete to torpor, after the first DF
effect has already been handled. Now, a new 'trigger' event occurs,
and you must apply it's effect.
>> Pete. thus ends that chain. But now Pete, being a crazy alien
>> viccissitudalist, plays a Reform Body. This unreadies him. a new
>> unreadying. It's not a result of a Dual Form effect.
>
>
>so what effect caused Bob to burn? Scary visions of his twin's death?
Pete being sent to torpor by Reform Body.
DF burned Pete, which won't trigger Bob burning.
BUT, Reform Body torpored Pete after that, which will trigger Bob's
burning.
>> that's where i'd put my money, anyway. at least a little bit of money.
>> say, 80c.
>
>I'll bid $0.10 more for my opinion, let LSJ judge this.
I'll raise you 10c, bring me to $1, and offer this:
Trigger -> Effect.
Bob makes Pete.
Bob goes to topor: Trigger
Effect: Pete is Burned.
end effect
Pete plays Reform Body which has:
Pete goes to torpor: Trigger
Effect: Bob is burned.
which also nicely illustrates why just adding 'ready minion' into
'other is burned' in DF's text wouldn't quite give us text that
creates a clearer wording for the current way DF works. However, i'd
be happy to live with the burden of all those pro/vic decks having
this extra little trick to play with. Go Rex!
LSJ
>>1. Bob is unreadied => buddy burn => Burn Pete.
>>2. But Pete plays Reform Body => unready Pete => buddy burn => Burn Bob.
>
>
> Wouldn't that be chain-effect?
Yes. Scratch that.
RF doesn't unready Pete -- he's already been unreadied by buddy burn.
So no new buddy burn.
Daneel
> 1. Bob is unreadied => buddy burn => Burn Pete.
> 2. But Pete plays Reform Body => unready Pete => buddy burn => Burn Bob.
> 3. Bob plays Reform Body. He's already been unreadied (see 1) however,
> so no buddy burn.
Basically he does not trigger Dual Form because he is redundantly sent
to torpor, as he is already in torpor, which causes no tangible change
in his state.
--
Bye,
Daneel
sinaath
I won a $1 :)
sinaath
Colin McGuigan
> sinaath wrote:
>
>>> 1. Bob is unreadied => buddy burn => Burn Pete.
>>> 2. But Pete plays Reform Body => unready Pete => buddy burn => Burn Bob.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't that be chain-effect?
>
>
> Yes. Scratch that.
> RF doesn't unready Pete -- he's already been unreadied by buddy burn.
> So no new buddy burn.
Is that a reversal of previous statements? Ie, if Bob goes to torpor,
and Pete burns, but Pete plays Reform Body, Bob will no longer burn?
My head hurts.
--Colin McGuigan
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Yes. Scratch that.
>> RF doesn't unready Pete -- he's already been unreadied by buddy burn.
>> So no new buddy burn.
>
> Is that a reversal of previous statements? Ie, if Bob goes to torpor,
> and Pete burns, but Pete plays Reform Body, Bob will no longer burn?
Yes. See "scratch that" and the explanation (and the similar
subsequent post stating that it is a reversal).
salem
<sin...@kill.this.gmail.com> scrawled:
nononono. (insert quick backpedal here).
I wasn't making a guess at a ruling, i was merely explaining _why_ i
thought lsj's previous ruling worked. the fact that he has overturned
that ruling doesn't mean my explanation was invalid. honest!
:D
could a face like that lie?